(1.) THE revision petitioner calls in question the legality of the order dated 20/4/2004 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.664 of 2004 by The Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam.
(2.) THE respondent herein as petitioner has filed the petition in question on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sathankulam praying to discharge him from the proceedings of Calendar Case No.198 of 2003, wherein he has been arrayed as the second accused. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is only a manufacturer and he can be added as an accused only after getting sufficient evidence. But the prosecution has erroneously arrayed him as second accused and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get discharge from the proceedings of Calendar Case No.198 of 2003.
(3.) PER contra, it has been contended on the side of the prosecution that the petitioner has manufactured the product in question and therefore, he has been arrayed as the second accused and under the said circumstances, the question of discharge doesn't arise.